Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mr Hitchens,

I have a question for you regarding your attitudes about drugs. As I am certain you are aware, during the 19th century, many well known persons consumed drugs freely, both for purposes medicinal and recreational. The list includes William Wilberforce, who used opium daily for his entire adult life, and was no doubt physically dependent upon opiates as a result. Charles Dickens and Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle are also numbered among those who used drugs forbidden to us today.

I ask you then what is different about their consumption of drugs back then and persons choosing to use exactly the same substances today? No doubt you will immediately retort "the law!" What was allowed then is forbidden today. All very well I reply, yet you claim that the reasoning behind the law is morality, claiming that it is inherently immoral to use drugs at any time. Therefore, the question I wish to put to you is; are you saying that Wilberforce, Dickens & Conan-Doyle were immoral men, and if not, why has drug use suddenly become immoral in contemporary times? If their actions were not immoral back in the 19th century, they cannot suddenly become immoral today, in which case you must admit that our drug prohibition laws are in dire need of replacement with a system of regulated access to currently prohibited substances for those demonstrating a need.

[Ironically, this is exactly what the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is supposed to do, but the Home Office refuses to allow doctors to act in such a way that those who need controlled drugs receive them].

What naivety from Baroness Meacher to think that the young will be protected from the street dealers by legalisation. Does she know what is going on our towns and cities.
Does she know it is happening at a younger and younger age. Will they pay tax no, they will still be used in this evil trade, it will still go on. There will always be a black market.
As a parent and a grandma, I haven't witnessed a strong message against drugs over the years, just more and more pro drug talk.
What has been going on is a quiet infiltration through pop stars and their gangsta style videos. The dress, the patois, the attitude to women in the videos, to the flash houses and cars and the drug and drink lifestyle.
Having seen a few and just how much influence they feed into young minds. One has a concert at the o2..I realised this week how horrible this all is and it's pushing this lifestyle and and becoming acceptable behaviour to the young who pay to go and see these stars, just names to us. Their music videos are not something I would normally encounter, but I did look and it's not just Baroness Meacher we need to push against.

Mr Hitchens, I question a few of your premises in your argument against cannabis legalisation, and I'd like to hear your opinion on these points:

If the war on drugs has been lost, as you say, then why shouldn't the Government make money out of it? Then we might at least ensure some more money can be raised to help deal with the consequences.

You say you would prefer an alternative -- strict enforcement of anti-drug laws. But is this not inconsistent with your position on alcohol:
You accept that the abuse of alcohol is equally immoral as the abuse of cannabis. Surely it is inconsistent to ask for the effective re-criminalisation of cannabis, but not for temperance?

I would prefer a liberal position: allow the sale of regulated drugs to adults, whilst strictly enforcing a ban on drug consumption in public spaces and public inebriation; and whilst, most importantly, putting funding into education -- young people (speaking as one) need to learn that all forms of drug use (including alcohol) are anti-social if misused.

Essentially, I would dispute that drug use in itself is immoral. This debate should be about the pragmatic implications of drug use.

I think the problem with your position is that you see all drug use as bad. Instead, I would propose we specifically target drug abuse, or the anti-social misuse of drugs.
You might argue that all drug use is dangerous and, therefore, misuse. Studies, such as Prof. David Nutt's, argue that low-level cannabis use is no more dangerous to your health than alcohol.

Admittedly, the side-effects of misuse can be much more horrible. However, I would argue that this is best targeted by education -- making people realise they don't want to harm themselves and hurt their loved ones. Allowing them a choice. Not by threatening to hit them with a big stick.

...although if one is pessimistic about people's capacity for education then I can see the appeal of the big stick.

Slightly (?) off-topic, but I would recommend to see the film called “August – Osage County” (USA, 2013). The film had a premiere recently in Sweden (it takes a while to interpret).

It is not a pleasant or hope-giving film – it deals with drug/alcohol abuse, family, sins and guilty, and loss of motherhood. I thought the film was good because it was not politically correct (= they did not win Oscar) - there were no excuses made for what the protagonists wronged. Drug abuse and adultery are depicted as they are – something ugly and abominable things that hurt you and your beloved ones. In other words, you are not forced to weep for Meryl Streep or Julia Roberts although their masterly performances showing great human misery.

In a way the film (one can tell that it was originally written as a play) reminded me Agatha Christie’s Murder on the Orient Express but without murder.

Meacher was very cynical in this debate. She sounded like some sort of government spokesman at times. Taxation to fund education programs all the while making the stuff easier to access than it already is. The point she made about the current policy being good for criminals is ridiculous. I guess we all know that crime and corruption never operates in the government right.

You'd be better off entering into a debate with a lobotomised tree-sloth than with Baroness Meacher, a bought-and-paid-for quangocrat of the "we know best" school who's as permeable to reasoned arguments as a sealed bank-vault is to casually flicked tiddlywinks.

Baroness Meacher says,
“The current policy, …, has destroyed the lives of countless young people, and cost the UK taxpayer £15bn per year.”

I thought and still think it is drug which has destroyed the countless lives of young people and their families.

One can say, for instance, cancer causes the deadly damage in the first place. Accusing radiotherapy (laws), because it gives horrible side effects, and throw it away and not remove the tumour (drugs) does not save lives.

Then I wonder if children and their parents in Colorado can be proud of their newly build schools “donated” by marijuana (ab)users’ self-stupefying activity.

I'm glad Mr. Hitchens picked up on Baroness Meacher's comments about tax revenue. When I read her comments about this, I immediately thought she had scored a spectacular own goal. I suppose she at least deserves some credit for being so forthright.

Actually, I thought her third and final "Yes" argument was particularly desperate, devoid of any serious argument.

Meacher's arguments are among the weakest I have seen advanced by their camp, despite her efforts towards gravitas. How are the following persuasive? Clegg is calling for a commission, the US has more "sophisticated" policies, the UN is meeting in 2016, it has pronounced that drug dependency is a "multifactorial" disease, the alleged successes of Portugal and Switzerland.

Who cares what they do in Uruguay?

How have "countless" lives been ruined by the present policy? By imprisonment or by non-enforcement?

The message seems to be that enlightened and serious people have finally decided that enough is enough. The implication is that only stubborn and unreasoning resistance from unenlightened reactionaries is holding back a humane and rational solution. (The ignorance of the masses can be corrected by "education".)

I don't think she is one of our optimists so what is the motivation?

I understand her husband is interested at present in how better mental health can improve social and economic life (Wikipedia). Shouldn't that be the other way round?

I am staggered - Meacher actually said we can't afford NOT to legalise drugs, because the government needs the money... there is so much wrong in that idea, that words fail me. Well done, Mr H, for pointing out the moral bankruptcy at the root of her arguments.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.